So you can not believe in God and still be a Christian? Really? I’m sure there’s a passage in The Bible you could use to reinforce this belief seeing as how The Bible washes away any and all contradictions in your perceived view of the Christian faith.

Nonfactor on August 29, 2007 at 7:32 PM

The Bible is filled with famous doubters. If you’re still here, since this one is already off the front, I’ll show you the verses.

jman on August 29, 2007 at 10:33 PM

Are you claiming you know your God’s plan? The bottom line is you take a “leap of faith,” almost the antithesis to reason and logic with nothing whatsoever to do with evidence.

He drove them from the Garden so they would not eat from the tree of life and remain in this condition forever.’

The other punishments are a constant reminder of the suffering sin brings.

Unless he wrote a book :)

jman on August 29, 2007 at 9:59 PM

Even then. See the story of Adam and Eve. They try to understand God’s plan and are punished.

3) Humans cannot know the plan.

Unless he wrote a book :)

One or neither of us is correct. We are not both correct.

jman on August 29, 2007 at 8:07 PM

The basics of religious tenants include:
1) God exists.
2) God has a plan.
3) Humans cannot know the plan.
4) Humans must take a leap of faith in believing in God.

It requires no faith to know that Genesis is untrue. It requires no faith to deny the existence of the Easter Bunny. When the actual evidence is in your hands contradicting the entire basis for a religion it is no longer a question about who is right, we know who’s right, and we know who is taking a leap of faith.

Are you saying that you believe there is evidence backing up your belief in Christianity? Many here are willing to admit there is none (why it’s called “faith”) hence the need for a “leap of faith.”

Both sides need faith. I’m just being honest about it.

I also suggest that it is possible to base your faith on the preponderance of the evidence. I drive across a bridge every day. I don’t know if it is going fall down. I have faith based on evidence that it will not.

We both look at the same set of facts and interpret them differently. We both have faith that our interpretation is correct.

One or neither of us is correct. We are not both correct.

This is why I believe it is necessary to know why you believe what you believe.

jman on August 29, 2007 at 6:30 PM

Are you saying that you believe there is evidence backing up your belief in Christianity? Many here are willing to admit there is none (why it’s called “faith”) hence the need for a “leap of faith.”

You don’t need faith when you have evidence on your side. I know Genesis is false via evidence. I know the Grecian gods are false via evidence. Et cetera.

But according to Christian theology, which is the only thing that can say who is and who isn’t a Christian, one can disbelieve and still be a Christian.

Those are just the facts.

Esthier on August 29, 2007 at 6:56 PM

So you can not believe in God and still be a Christian? Really? I’m sure there’s a passage in The Bible you could use to reinforce this belief seeing as how The Bible washes away any and all contradictions in your perceived view of the Christian faith.

That because atheists attack Christianity it must mean that they think the Christian God exists?

No, that’s not the statement.

Your point being? You can call it “doubt” but what it amounts to is a rejection of faith, God, and Catholicism. Period. To pretend like she was a Christian after seeing this evidence is absurd.

Again, you’re arguing semantics. But according to Christian theology, which is the only thing that can say who is and who isn’t a Christian, one can disbelieve and still be a Christian.

Those are just the facts.

You believe in something when there is no proof of its “existance,” and you’re talking about rationality in argument? My point wasn’t to state whether or not I agreed with someone else’s argument for not believing in God, it was to point out your own hypocrisy.

Actually, I never claimed this, so I don’t know how you can say I am a hypocrite without knowing how I came to believe in God. When I became a christian, I wanted to believe it was not true to justify my life choices.

You need to acknowledge that there is a difference between blind faith and reasoned faith. You also should acknowledge that both Atheism and Christianity require faith. This is why I believe it is necessary to know why you believe what you believe.

Read the Bible. Over and over again, doubt is a key issue that tests the vast majority of the main characters.

Esthier on August 29, 2007 at 5:49 PM

Your point being? You can call it “doubt” but what it amounts to is a rejection of faith, God, and Catholicism. Period. To pretend like she was a Christian after seeing this evidence is absurd.

She may have been an atheist. Only she and God can say for sure.

Esthier on August 29, 2007 at 5:52 PM

And being that she’s said her mind and God doesn’t exist I think we all know the truth.

This does nothing to disprove right2bright’s statement.

Esthier on August 29, 2007 at 5:53 PM

His statement about what? That because atheists attack Christianity it must mean that they think the Christian God exists? Uh, hello? Don’t tell me you’re just going to ignore that tremendous flaw in logic because it fits your bias. Or is it his point that not understanding an imaginary being that is defined in a myriad of different ways by a myriad of different sects of Christianity does not prove said beings nonexistence? Of course I’d agree that misunderstanding or disapproval does not prove nonexistence, what I would argue is that evidence and falsities in The Bible prove the nonexistence of your God. Let me repeat what I said earlier in this thread: I know there is no Christian God similar to how I know there is no Muslim God or Grecian gods. I do not know whether or not there is a “God,” but the way you think of God is most likely different than what I am thinking of (not something that personally created human beings et cetera). The only reason I do not know that there is a God is because it is impossible to prove, similarly I do not know whether or not there are aliens (though probability would indicate there are) or invisible beings that take the shape of unicorns and dance around in clouds after rainy days. If it was proven that a God did exist (in whatever form) I would obviously believe in it, but that isn’t to say I’d worship it and mold my life around what human beings interpret it’s will to be.

For a person to dismiss the existance of something because they do not like it is not rational.

jman on August 29, 2007 at 6:02 PM

You believe in something when there is no proof of its “existance,” and you’re talking about rationality in argument? My point wasn’t to state whether or not I agreed with someone else’s argument for not believing in God, it was to point out your own hypocrisy.

A “rationl” argument? To see a Christian talk about a rational argument when referring to God is laughable, especially knowing that without a slight hesitation you would abandon the use of physical evidence or ignore the falsities in The Bible in attempts to justify your biased belief.

Thank you for demonstrating my point. Instead of countering my argument, you dismissed it because you do not agree with the source. For a person to dismiss the existance of something because they do not like it is not rational.

I should know, because I suffered from the same flawed thinking during my younger years. I even bought all of the so-called bible contradictions, until I put them into context.

What people like Hitchens do to the bible is no different than what the left does to the constitition. They pick and chose what suites their ideology and rip other items out of context and insert things that are not there:

Separation of Church & state (i.e. freedom from religion), constitutional right to abortions, etc.

Atheists also deny thousands of other religions, not just Christianity.

Nonfactor on August 29, 2007 at 5:46 PM

Yes, and they frequently attack the beliefs of other religious people as well. This does nothing to disprove right2bright’s statement.

I’m not saying that she definitely had nothing more than little doubts. I’m only saying that doubts are very common and do not make someone stop being a Christian.

She may have been an atheist. Only she and God can say for sure.

Read Resolute’s post at 9:13.

That’s a semantical argument that says nothing about whether or not she was still a Christian.

Read the Bible. Over and over again, doubt is a key issue that tests the vast majority of the main characters.

Disapproval of God or not understanding Him is not a rationl argument for his non-existance.

jman on August 29, 2007 at 5:24 PM

A “rationl” argument? To see a Christian talk about a rational argument when referring to God is laughable, especially knowing that without a slight hesitation you would abandon the use of physical evidence or ignore the falsities in The Bible in attempts to justify your biased belief.

Esthier on August 29, 2007 at 9:30 AM

Read Resolute’s post at 9:13.

They have to look into their souls and see what is driving them to attack something that does not exist…unless it does exist.

right2bright on August 29, 2007 at 10:15 AM

Do you really think this is sound reasoning? You’re missing a vital part of your argument, I’ll see if you can find it for yourself. Christians (and many other religious peoples) try and ignore the fact that they took something called a “leap of faith,” and continue ignoring the fact when they try and use logic when arguing with people. If you aren’t clouded by bias you see it, if you are, you miss it. And I’ll give you a hint in figuring out the hole in your logic. Atheists also deny thousands of other religions, not just Christianity.

jman on August 29, 2007 at 5:33 PM

Thanks. The “please let this cup pass” thing is something of a comfort in my mind. If even Christ had His moments like that, then mine are meaningless.

Now if God proved his existence in the modern era by doing something nice or useful – making it rain chocolate that doesn’t make you fat or smiting jihadists, wasps and rap music, speaking via cable television – then I’d believe.

uptight on August 29, 2007 at 1:25 AM

Now you just seem to be making crap up.

You want jihadists dead but don’t think it was great that slave-owning Egypt got its military arse handed to it by the Almighty and think fat free chocolate would be awesome but pass on the deal of getting high class wine out of water and food enough for thousands out of a kid’s lunch box.

You’ve just proven with your own list that even “good” deeds wouldn’t get you to believe.

Personally, I like the idea of spending eternity with a god who thinks it’s a good idea to still serve the good wine after the guests are already drunk. I hate it when the bartender decides for him/herself that I’m drunk and therefore won’t care what’s in my drink.

Oh, and as to point number 2: Salt is a seasoning, not a condiment, and nowhere in the Bible does it say that God turned Lot’s wife into salt. She transformed into salt when she looked back, but it doesn’t say God turned her into salt.

The preceding passages are very clear. Destruction was coming, those who heeding the warning would be saved, but those who didn’t would be “swept away.” That’s exactly what happened.

I’d argue your other points, but you’re a little too caught up in the idea that you know as much as any god that could possibly exist, which is illogical. If god, any god, exists, then, by definition, that god is a higher being, capable of thoughts you and I are not capable of even beginning to understand. If god is no more logical than you or I, god is not a superior being and, by definition, is not god.

But honestly, even Christ Himself wanted a different path in life. He didn’t disbelief God’s existence, but the sweating blood thing surely points to a disagreement in over how God wanted everything to play out in the end.

Esthier on August 29, 2007 at 9:30 AM

Wow, great point

I may even believe if he didn’t use fear to make me believe. It’s just…spending eternity with a sadistic, petty meglomaniac doesn’t seem much of an alternative to the hell we are threatened with.

uptight on August 29, 2007 at 1:25 AM

Exactly. God gives us free choice. Choice to love him or choice to reject him. He will not voilate your free will.

I apparrently have the opposite view of God than you do. I know him as a loving Father whoo gave his life for me.

Even if I agreed with you, I would still be a Christian. Disapproval of God or not understanding Him is not a rationl argument for his non-existance.

Imagine you are on a boat and fall overboard. Someone you can’t stand throws you a lifesaver. A few possibilities are:
1. Take it and live
2. Rant about how you can’t stand the person and the injustice of having to be saved by someone you hate.
3. Pretend you don’t see the lifesaver

Needless to say, choices 2 & 3 will probably end up with you drowning. In this case, who is responsible for this death? Obviously the person who drowned. Yet somehow, the blame gets put on the person who threw the lifesaver.

I know it is an imperfect analogy, but you get the idea.

Are you Richard Dawkins?

:)

JayHaw Phrenzie on August 29, 2007 at 2:23 AM

If he is he needs to give up his belief in evolution and go with punctuated equilibrium. Much more logical.

MB4 on August 29, 2007 at 2:35 AM

Hmmm, that’s interesting. Can you explain in what way(s) punctuated equilibrium is more logical? Can you can explain why punctuated equilibrium is inconsistent with evolution? Do the majority of biologists believe that punctuated equilibrium is: (1) true? (2) inconsistent with evolution? If you can’t give satisfactory answers to the above, are we entitled to conclude that you’re using terms you don’t know the meaning of?

nationspatriotcom on August 29, 2007 at 2:09 PM

I am humbled and touched by your reply, and proud to consider you a friend.

npc, this was originally directed at you, too, but to your credit, you returned with some polite and thoughtful comments.

RushBaby on August 29, 2007 at 8:48 AM

Well written post. I agree.
My point, initially, was that a vast majority of us on this site are, for the most part, agreeable on most (political) terms. If we knew each other on the street, most of us would certainly help each other out if the other(s) were in need.

You nailed it when you said:

because common ground is established and we share respect for one another

I appreciate your kindness, tolerance, and acknowledgment of others. You always (nearly every thread) take the time to really think about your insights before providing them, and always avoid intentionally insulting someone. I admire that as I try to do the same.
My first post, after reading over it, sounded too harsh when directed at MB4. I felt that it needed more clarity, so I toned it down, and redirected my sentiment without disagreement, but rather appreciate what I’ve grown to learn from each of you who post regularly.
My only concern, to summarize, was that I didn’t ‘enjoy’ reading a thread where common-thinkers tear at each other over ideals and beliefs. IMO, we just would be better off understanding the others’ point of view and trying to reach ‘tolerable diversity’, rather than ‘joust’ over our subjective views.
I suppose, however, after having considered your insight, that in having such a debate of different views, you’re correct in that we can get to know each other better and even learn some things along the way.

Also, I agree with the sentiment here:

I have arrived at the conclusion, in agreement with you, that Mother Teresa never LOST her faith. That instead, she was sorely tested.

It’s a shame that some wish to exploit a wonderful, loving, caring woman who (along with devoting her life to impact others in a positive way) expressed her doubts – for the sake of ‘disproving’ a deity, for their own agendas. Hitchens, who is clearly an intelligent man, simply wants to use what he can to intentionally mislead those who will follow his lead, so he can profit by selling them books that ‘validate’ what his subjective views are, passing them off as proof. After all, the more people you convince to see things your way, the less you stand alone on one side…

which reminds me of this quote, spoken first by Baudelaire, the French poet, circa 1864, popularized by Verbal Kint in the film The Usual Suspects:

The greatest trick the Devil pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist…